Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla Has Stopped All Commercial Development On Firefox OS -- Explains What It Plans To Do With Code Base (google.com)

Mozilla announced last year that Firefox OS initiative of shipping phones with commercial partners did not bring the returns it sought. The company earlier this year hinted that it intends to shut the project. It is now sharing how it will deal with Firefox OS code base going forward. From their post: We would stop our efforts to build and ship smartphones through carrier partners and pivot our efforts with Firefox OS to explore opportunities for new use cases in the world of connected devices. Firefox OS was transitioned to a Tier 3 platform from the perspective of support by Mozilla's Platform Engineering organization. That meant as of January 31, 2016 no Mozilla Platform Engineering resources would be engaged to provide ongoing support and all such work would be done by other contributors. For some period of time that work would be done by Mozillaâ(TM)s Connected Devices team. We had ideas for other opportunities for Firefox OS, perhaps as a platform for explorations in the world of connected devices, and perhaps for continued evolution of Firefox OS TV. To allow for those possibilities, and to provide a stable release for commercial TV partners, development would continue on a Firefox OS 2.6 release. In parallel with continued explorations by the Connected Devices team, we recognized there was interest within the Mozilla community in carrying forward work on Firefox OS as a smartphone platform, and perhaps even for other purposes. A Firefox OS Transition Project was launched to perform a major clean-up of the B2G code bringing it to a stable end state so it could be passed into the hands of the community as an open source project. In the spring and summer of 2016 the Connected Devices team dug deeper into opportunities for Firefox OS. They concluded that Firefox OS TV was a project to be run by our commercial partner and not a project to be led by Mozilla. Further, Firefox OS was determined to not be sufficiently useful for ongoing Connected Devices work to justify the effort to maintain it. This meant that development of the Firefox OS stack was no longer a part of Connected Devices, or Mozilla at all. Firefox OS 2.6 would be the last release from Mozilla. Today we are announcing the next phase in that evolution. While work at Mozilla on Firefox OS has ceased, we very much need to continue to evolve the underlying code that comprises Gecko, our web platform engine, as part of the ongoing development of Firefox. In order to evolve quickly and enable substantial new architectural changes in Gecko, Mozilla's Platform Engineering organization needs to remove all B2G-related code from mozilla-central. This certainly has consequences for B2G OS. For the community to continue working on B2G OS they will have to maintain a code base that includes a full version of Gecko, so will need to fork Gecko and proceed with development on their own, separate branch.

27 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. Firefox OS? by JesseEnjaian · · Score: 2

    I want investor fun money.

    1. Re:Firefox OS? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who DIDN'T see this coming? Anyone in the real world? Anyone?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  2. (Gecko = "Web platform") = WTF by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's your problem right there. How about concentrating on giving us a good *browser* instead, like you used to?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    1. Re:(Gecko = "Web platform") = WTF by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's hard to justify a multi-million-dollar budget if you're only making a web browser.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:(Gecko = "Web platform") = WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Given that Mozilla makes hundreds of millions per year by auctioning off the default search engine on Firefox, and given that this money is proportional to market share (currently at 8%), I'd say that a multi-million-dollar budget is easily justified for only making a web browser.

    3. Re:(Gecko = "Web platform") = WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do we want Mozilla to 'improve' Firefox further? Mozilla's best application is Thunderbird, and the reason for that is because they stopped working on it. Had they continued development of Thunderbird you'd need about twenty extensions just to make it usable, as you do with Firefox.

      I don't think there's much hope for the future of Firefox. Mozilla have shown they're completely out of touch with what users want, and as such Firefox's market share on the desktop has dropped from about 25% to 7.69%, and is continuing to drop at an average at a rate of about 0.5 percentage points per month. Firefox isn't competitive in terms of performance so it does need improving, but the last thing you want is Mozilla's idea of improvement, so whatever happens it appears that Firefox will continue it's not-so-slow death.

  3. WOW by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Firefox OS turned out to not be a success? Thank goodness I was already sitting down when I read this!

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:WOW by nnull · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And don't forget Ubuntu on phones. I was hoping they'd have some success with that but it seems incompetence completely rolled over that. They stopped selling the Meizu Pro 5, with all its problems, since then it has become last years phone. The Meizu Pro 6 is out and Ubuntu is just left behind, selling nothing. I hope they can change because I'm honestly tired of my Android phone tracking me ever since Google's latest maps and play store update.

  4. Mozilla is wasting money, brains, and time by sjbe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Mozilla announced last year that Firefox OS initiative of shipping phones with commercial partners did not bring the returns it sought.

    And did anyone expect otherwise? Mozilla is an organization which has lost its purpose. It keeps chasing fads, copying the work of others, wasting money on projects that no one needed or wanted, and can't seem to figure out what to do next. Mozilla's original goal was to ensure there was an open web. Internet Explorer and Microsoft were in danger of turning the web into a monopoly. Firefox provided the fireblock to prevent this from happening. Problem is that once they accomplished that goal, they didn't know what to do next.

    I like Firefox and use it as my primary browser. It's a decent albeit imperfect bit of software. But if Mozilla really wants to make a difference they need to focus on solving actual problems instead of trying to do a second rate version of whatever Google is working on this week. They need to focus on a specific problem and do it really well. They did that for a while with browser software. Time to genuinely focus on something new.

    1. Re:Mozilla is wasting money, brains, and time by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is what happens with organizations that literally are rolling in piles of cash and have no clue what to do next. Look at Yahoo/Microsoft/Google/etc. It took a heroic effort to get Apple back from the brink.

    2. Re:Mozilla is wasting money, brains, and time by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Time to genuinely focus on something new.

      OK, let's see ... running my finger down the list, we arrive at ... ah! Here we go. Internet of Things. Sharpen your pencils, everyone!

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    3. Re:Mozilla is wasting money, brains, and time by kaiser423 · · Score: 2

      Yup. They're without a mission. And looking in from the outside, all future/current missions looks like bad plays. IoT will play out like the smart phone thing, and so on.

      So, what should they do? Well, you wait until a mission comes. You don't just cast around for one because you have money and the desire. You enhance, solidy, and perfect your current mission. Polish the heck out of FF, and wait for the next thing. It'll likely be adjacent to FF, and having an exceptional product on hand will make that leap easier and more likely to be successful.

      They keeping trying to hop onto fads as they start -- like trying to get in on the bottom floor or not miss the boat. Instead, they need to wait for a problem to present itself and fester for a bit so that the ways to fix it are clear. Trying to catch every bandwagon just leaves you exhausted and covered in dust. My bet is that they still feel that "it's win" because they nudged to market towards a freer or opener place or something. But they'll never have impact, nor survive like that....gotta have the big marquee projects and successes also.

    4. Re:Mozilla is wasting money, brains, and time by evilviper · · Score: 2

      Firefox OS was never faster or lower-end than Android to begin with. The idea that HTML+JS+CSS could ever be faster than native compiled apps (or even Java/Dalvik for that matter) was just insane. Damn near everybody knew it was a bullshit waste of money just thrown at the wall.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:Mozilla is wasting money, brains, and time by Kjella · · Score: 2

      I like Firefox and use it as my primary browser. It's a decent albeit imperfect bit of software. But if Mozilla really wants to make a difference they need to focus on solving actual problems instead of trying to do a second rate version of whatever Google is working on this week. They need to focus on a specific problem and do it really well. They did that for a while with browser software. Time to genuinely focus on something new.

      Actually I wish they'd go back and do something old because they had the funds without needing the hype. If there was three things you'd find on any business desktop it was IE, Outlook and Office. One down, two to go. They might have to work on an AD/Exchange too in order to really succeed. I think it's nuts that in 2016 most people still use proprietary tech for simple documents and spreadsheets.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:Mozilla is wasting money, brains, and time by Blaskowicz · · Score: 2

      People were waiting for the 5" phones with 1GB RAM and Firefox OS 2.x (e.g. ZTE Open L)

      A big mistake was to go too much low end then fail to release upgrades fast enough. People were stuck on version 1.3, which doesn't actually offer privacy - no adblocking and no filtering. For those that were interested on technical and security grounds, it was a giant Osborne effect (that would still be going on : Web Assembly and Servo are not there yet). It did have e10s early on.
      The best part is the phone didn't require an online acccount, nor even asked for one.

      With today's phone CPUs it would be a kind of Chrome OS for the mobile phone.
      The one low end friendly aspect was the OS and built-in apps used very few storage. Security patches were small and quick. (But actual upgrades required to download a community image and to mess with the phone, using a Windows program to flash it. Hence the normal end user experience was to run Firefox OS 1.3 forever, based on Firefox 28)

  5. Re:Guess what America?? by SumDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They're both psychopaths. Both of you are trolls. The vote doesn't matter. America is a monarchy. The government under Romney would have been the same. Now fuck off and stop pretending your vote matters.

  6. I want alternatives by SumDog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So with Windows, FirefoxOS and Ubuntu Mobile fading out, are we just stuck with Android/iOS now?

    1. Re:I want alternatives by LichtSpektren · · Score: 2

      I've not read anything to suggest Ubuntu Touch is fading out.

    2. Re:I want alternatives by Luthair · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree, it would have to had sold devices in order to fade away.

    3. Re:I want alternatives by benmhall · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes. This is exactly what we are stuck with. What's worse is that we're really stuck with Apple and Samsung, as they account for over 100% of profits from handhelds (meaning everyone else is losing money.)

      As we've lost choice in platforms, we will soon lose choose in who is offering the platforms. At the moment, LG, HTC, Samsung, Sony, BlackBerry, Asus, and a boatload of Chinese companies offer Android phones. If the second-tier manufacturers like LG, HTC, Sony can't be profitable, they'll have to exit. This will leave us with Apple with iOS, Samsung selling premium and mid-range, and everyone else squabbling for enough table scraps to stay afloat with Android.

      I applaud the effort on Ubuntu Mobile, but I'd put it's chances of succeeding as far less than BlackBerry's or even Firefox OS, which at least had good buzz and shipped devices for a couple of years.

      We've lost Symbian, webOS, BlackBerry OS already. Firefox OS is toast, and I can't imagine that Jolla has much gas left. If Microsoft wasn't Microsoft, Windows Phone OS would have died completely ages ago, and still likely will. iOS is a walled garden, Android is a sieve that sends everything back to Google for monetization. And it's still a usability disaster. It's a pretty bad state of affairs.

    4. Re:I want alternatives by LichtSpektren · · Score: 2

      It does sell devices. Granted, an almost insignificant amount; but it's growing, not fading.

    5. Re:I want alternatives by grumbel5969 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, what's wrong with Android? It's based on Linux and somewhat Open Source. It would be nice if there would be more compatibility between desktop Linux and Android, but that's something that could be accomplished without reinventing everything. Ubuntu in fact worked on allowing you to run Android apps on desktop Linux, but they abandoned that many years ago and instead went the same "reinvent everything" route that Mozilla tried and they will probably fail just the same.

      If Free Software wants to stay relevant in the long run they need to work more on interoperability, portability and mobility. Back in the day there was a "many user : single computer" environment and cloning Unix solved that reasonably well, but these days we live in a "single user : multiple computer" environment and so far Free Software isn't really handling that all that well and all these "let's write yet another OS" efforts aren't really helping, as they are just yet another OS that it mostly incompatible with the devices I already own.

  7. Clinton and Trump fall off a bridge. Who is saved? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2, Funny

    Q: Clinton and Trump fall off a bridge. Who is saved?
    A: America.

    Q: Clinton and Trump jump off the Empire State building without a parachute. Who hits the ground first?
    A: Who cares?

    Q: Clinton and Trump fall into the ocean. Who drowns?
    A: Neither. Shit floats.

    Those two are proof that politics is like a septic tank - the really big chunks float to the top.

    Try the fish.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  8. Re:Meh by LichtSpektren · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, keeping. Firefox is still the best browser. Now that e10s is stable its performance is comparable with Chrome's, and it still has far superior extensions, customizability, and built-in security/privacy features.

  9. Re:Meh by narcc · · Score: 2

    Servo

    It's hard not to be impressed.

  10. I'm going to point this out every time I see it by sootman · · Score: 2

    "For some period of time that work would be done by Mozillaâ(TM)s Connected Devices team."

    COME ON, SLASHDOT!

    And now, a joke:
    Q: What's the difference between me and Slashdot?
    A: In the last 20 years, I've learned how to deal with common special characters.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  11. Re:Guess what America?? by Alomex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sorry but this is bogus. Compare the performance of America's economy, wages, policies, foreign relations between Bill Clinton and Bush Jr.

    It does make a difference. Imagine what we could have done with the trillion dollars we spent fighting the war in Iraq?